Ben C Smith

Cephas and Peter being two separate people does not mean that Cephas was not a disciple of Jesus. Our two earliest principal sources for their separation are the Epistula Apostolorum and Clement of Alexandria, the former of which makes Cephas one of the twelve and the latter of which makes Cephas one of the seventy.

This is sort of what I was driving at with my question. Your view is that, if the passage is authentic, then Paul has two different people in mind, Cephas and Peter; hence the different names used. Others who regard the passage as authentic see Cephas and Peter as synonyms (Aramaic and Greek for rock or Rocky) and thus believe that Paul has the same individual in mind. It is possible to regard the passage as inauthentic and simultaneously suppose that Cephas and Peter were the same person based on other evidence. And it is possible to regard the passage as inauthentic and simultaneously suppose that Cephas and Peter were two different people. It is also possible, whether the passage is authentic or not, to suppose that only Cephas had any historical reality, and that the later Peter was based on Cephas in some way, being an offshoot or legendization of him.

In short, I think the question of how many people Peter and Cephas make and the question of whether Galatians 2.7-8 is spurious are two independent inquiries.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Can you expand? Retaining which name? Judas? Cephas? Peter?

Thanks.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

I took John Kesler to mean that the group of leading disciples might have continued with its original name the twelve even though death and/or defection had reduced its membership to eleven.

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

Retaining the name "the twelve." A modern example is the Big Ten conference, which retained that name even after an eleventh member was added.

Euphen

Ben: I see your point. As for Peter and Cephas being synonyms in this passage, since Paul never links the two, wouldn't that require that, in order to understand that Cephas is Peter, both Paul and the audience he is writing for speak Aramaic?

Also, just out of curiosity, I read somewhere in this thread that there is only one other known instance of the person named Cephas. What is the source for this?

Ben C Smith

Good analogy. And indeed I have seen that as a possible reconstruction on the conservative side (namely that Paul used the term the twelve as a title, not as a head count).

Thanks for the supplement.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

No, just that it was known that Peter went by either name. Many modern readers seem to know that Cephas was another name for Peter without knowing either Aramaic or Greek!

Sometimes names are transliterated into another language, sometimes translated.

Only one other known instance in the NT? Or in all relevant biblical and patristic literature? If the former, John 1.42 links Peter and Cephas, and is the only NT passage outside Paul to even mention Cephas. If the latter, then the assertion is just wrong. (For the relevant passages from the Epistula Apostolorum and Clement of Alexandria, refer to my page on Peter and scroll down to the bottom.)

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Point taken. If Gal. 2:7-8 is removed, then IYO is Peter absent from the Pauline epistles?

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

The name Peter is absent from the Pauline epistles if Galatians 2.7-8 is removed. Whether the Cephas that Paul mentions several times is the same person as the Peter that appears in the gospels is, to my mind, a question that does not depend on the status of Galatians 2.7-8. Most of the evidence for the identification of Cephas with Peter (with the exception of John) has always been indirect. That is not a slur on the evidence for the identification; often indirect evidence is absolutely the best evidence for an historical assertion.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

My question was in reference to the text.
Thanks for the confirmation!

Jake